This is a question for those who have practiced Chang Hon TKD and Kukki TKD. What sparring method did you prefer? I did Chang Hon style TKD for almost a year (TAGB) and went to a couple of WTF classes. Sparred in the TAGB but not in the WTF classes.

The WTF classes seemed to favour dodging/avoidance more, whereas there was more blocking/parrying in the TAGB class.

I came up in ITF/USTF school. We did the Chan Hon sparring. Back when I did tournements it was alot of fun. While I only did a couple of Kukki style matches it was kind of strange.It seemed so unnatural for your opponent to be standing there with his hands at his sides. I was almost DQed for just faking like I was gonna head punch my opponent.I didn't really enjoy the whole "playing footsy" tag thing. Then again that wasn't the style I was training in. It just seems weird to not be concerned about catching a face punch. I've moved on to traditional Karate and enjoy it very much. I guess it all comes down to what is your motivation to train. If it is pure sport (no SD) then kukki style TKD is probably for you.However, if you want to learn some self defense and still compete in sparring the Chan Hon is a better choice. I will also qualify my statement by saying for Self defense I would use a few of my TKD techniques, but most I wouldn't. It comes down to a question of range and having a good base.

Having only done Kukki style sparring, I can't properly compare the two but I can say that Kukki style sparring emphasises the athletic ability of the practitioner over realism. I have always found this strange. This method of sparring is lots of fun, is good exercise and requires a lot of skill but doesn't even remotely resemble the core of the martial art.

I believe that this style of sparring arose as a result of the equipment used (heavy torso padding) and the no punch to the face rule. It's impractical to block a kick to the head because you'll just hurt your arms in most cases and there's no point blocking your torso because the padding will do the job for you. The logical consequence is that arms are basically momentum generators, instead of used in any practical sense for defence. The purpose is less to block your opponents hits but to accept that they'll land a few blows and try to score more points than they did. This is only possible because kicks against the torso guard don't hurt much and can basically be ignored (barring the occasional powerful back kick).

I have always thought that this form of sparring encourages sloppy technique at the expense of power and speed. You are only able to generate that much power quickly because you can afford not to guard yourself with your hands. In a situation where you are not wearing the torso guard, those kinds of kicks open you up for major damage.

I always thought that myself Leo re Kukki sparring. Although it is full contact training, the stategies employed within Kukki sparring seem to favour speed over power. I witnessed incredibly fast and accurate kicking at a WTF class by a black belt, but he didn't seem to have any power in his kicks at all. I suppose those are the rules of the game.

Regarding the sparring not reflecting the core of the art, I think that is an similar issue some Karate practioners have also expressed about Karate and Kumite. Certainly I found Chang Hon TKD to be the same.

I'm starting to think that sparring never reflects the core of our chosen arts.While it shows the techniques in a semi-controlled setting it still doesn't reflect The S-D aspects. In sparring there is give and take under controlled rules. Where self-defense(what should be the core of the art) isn't bound by the rules. This isn't to say that I'm against sparring. It's valuable training and alot of fun. I just think that using a defensive art in an offensive sport kind of blurs the purpose of the art. Before everyone piles on me let me qualify that this is just my opinion. I also realize that now as a traditional, (Okinawan Goju ryu)stylist our focus is on self-defense.

I think that is an interesting point Mark. Arts like TKD and Karate often do emphasise a philosophy restraint and not attacking someone unless attacked first. That said, in the sports of TKD and Karate, practioners are engouraged to be aggressive in order to win matches. It most definitely can blur the lines of what the art is really about.

Ive been exposed to both during my time with tkd and I must say that the Chang style of sparring seems closer to my style(Counter fighter) though it was miles way from being a productive tool in developing self defense. It saddens me to see so many who feel that there sparring pratice doesnt resemble self defense as taught by there respective arts. I understand that there is certain boundaries, and that these act as constraints against the practitioners but this is something that must be worked past. At a beginner level these boundaries are a great thing but as one makes his journey into his art, it should grow and so should his ability to express that growth in a physical manner. This is on of the reasons, and a big one, that I feel that MMA training has surpassed that of the TMA. IMO

_________________________
"When I let Go of who I am, I become who I might be." Lao Tzu

Chen Zen, you make good points. I did better in the Chang style of sparring too. I found I was much more effective when letting my opponent come to me. I stand by my feeling that sparring brings in a dynamic that isn't there in self-defense. hand and feet coverings change some techniques and totally eliminate others. There's a line that isn't crossed while sparring.In self-defense there isn't that barrier. If you think that to defend yourself you need to blast the knee.. you do.Strikes to the neck,throat,groin are all targets in SD. I'm not saying that sparring is useless,far from it. I just think that the whole idea that :"I'm a tournement champ so I can defend myself on the street"is flawed. Having said all that you are correct in you opinion that MMA has surpasssed TMA as far as the physical aspects of training. I just wish they would call it something else. To me they are fighting while using martial techniques. I don't see much art in what they are doing.

Ah, but like any form of art, it is subjective. What you may consider art, I may consider as less. Some train for fitness, and so they see art in forms. Others see artistry in weapons and so they pursue those things and others still, and I fall into this group, believe that the art lies not in things previosly mentioned but within the physical application of the art.

Take what I do, for example. It is not MMA or TMA. The techniques I employ come from a number of different TMA and a few untraditional arts as well. I also train to cover all three ranges, and I roll like a MMA fighter. However you couldnt call me one or the other. What I do I have made my own. As such, is it no longer art?

Also I wanted to address something else you mentioned. The line that one crosses in self defense and prohibits him in training. This line does exist, however, I venture to say that since your opponent in the dojo is also limited by these things that you should be quiet proficient at defending yourself without such crude methods as groin striking, for example. As this proficiency increases this line is diminished, as true self defense can be achieved without such things.

Humbly,CZ

_________________________
"When I let Go of who I am, I become who I might be." Lao Tzu